The Israeli right-wing extremists in my last post probably have an ally in the Palestinian extremists, who are as much opposed to peace as they are. As suicide bombings are difficult to carry out because of though Israeli security, and Qassams are causing too little damage and fear to the taste of the terrorists, Palestinian militants now tried to kidnap Israeli girls in the territories:

Left-wing and Arab opponents of the Israeli plan to unilaterally remove more settlements from the West Bank, have an ally: the Israeli extreme right. Activists distributed flyers in which they explained how they want to disrupt the disengagement (consolidation, convergence, realignment, or whatever it is called today). Their proposals are not restricted to the legal means that exist in Israel to voice your opinion and make your point.

Their plan includes damaging army equipment, infecting military computers with viruses, infiltrating substances to cause soldiers indigestion, and their most extreme tactic: attempting to incite an Intifada among Arab Israelis that will delay the evictions.

They call the army an 'army of destruction and expulsion', and 'an enemy by every definition'. The best defense is to attack, they explain, and go on to describe how to fight this enemy:

In his new book, Islamic Imperialism: A History, Efraim Karsh argues that the conflict between Islam and the West is not a war of civilizations or Islamic reaction to Western imperialism. Rather, it seems to be a conflict between two sets of powers with imperialistic goals.

Evelyn Gordon has argued that the debasing of Israel's image in recent years was due to Israeli concessions to the Palestinians. Gordon would have us believe that before 1993 everyone loved Israel, and everyone in the world recognized and honored Israel's claims to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Only the Oslo accords and subsequent concessions ruined this idyll. As discussed previously, this was hardly the case. Gordon forgot a few things like the Zionism is Racism resolution of 1975 and the first intifada, as well as Israeli offers of concessions in the West Bank beginning with the Alon plan of 1967.

Evelyn Gordon argues in the Jerusalem Post that Israel's image is at an all time low because Israelis admitted that the territories were occupied, and offered to make concessions to the Palestinians. Gordon asks why Israel's image has deteriorated in the last 13 years, and this is her answer:

It may surprise you, that as an Israeli who grew up in apartheid South Africa, I commend every word in the last sentence of your article, in which you state:

"For the record, our members have also decided at a previous national convention to "call for and actively work towards an end to all acts of violence that take the lives of innocent people, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli. "We continue to support a negotiated peace process based on equality -- and that means the wall must come down"

Your even-handed approach comes as a breath of fresh air by comparison with the many strident one-sided attacks on Israel which have become commonplace.

The blame for the tragic deaths of the Gaza family last week has been laid squarely at Israel's door by Palestinians, and by much of the international media. The Palestinians staged the usual protests and the expected heart-rending interviews, in an attempt to fasten the blame firmly on Israel, and others followed suit, including some Israelis who should know better.

Why is it that I feel that this latest incident is just more of the same? Hamas who puts no value on human life has sunk to a new low. It was a staged killing, with a camera rolling, which just happened to be on the scene; and all for what purpose?

Well, derailing the Abbas referendum comes to mind, tugging on the heart strings of the predisposed believers as another, justifying further violence and Jihad a third.

The list goes on, all nefarious and hatred filled reasons to justify and to continue a defunct policy. Now it is Hamas terrorism against its own people to arm twist them in continuing a struggle that means something only to Hamas and its myopic leadership; when a Two State solution is near consummation only but for the Hamas barricaded mentality.

Is life so cheap for Hamas manipulators that the Palestinian blood of an innocent family to be shed so wantonly? First Dura and now this!

It should end, but it’s up the Palestinian people to see the light and uncover what Hamas is all about, a ruthless bunch of killers, to whom the end always justifies the means.

… A rose by any other name … Except it is not by any means a rose, but the analogy still holds. The double standard of the world mainstream media treatment of similar events sorely needed a pristine mirror surface to reflect this statement’s truism.

It seems terrorism is recognized only when it is directed at any one and any country except Israel. Alan Dershowitz in his recent article reflectively points to this double standard in journalistic treatment of similar events.

Israel Bonan

Following is the full transcript of the article of the Huffington Post:

A much forgotten historical fact that is finally coming of age and it’s time it got its rightful attention. The imbalance of the Middle East narrative is sorely lacking the attention of the main stream media; only one side of the story is repeatedly being told and history mandates a more balanced perspective.

The NY Post columnist shed a small light on the recent marriage of convenience of the political right & left in the US Congress that came together to right the imbalance of the Middle East narrative. It’s about time that justice is doled out in equal proportion to all the Refugees of the Middle East.

The boycott of Israel voted by the British NATFHE university lecturers union is now defunct, because the union has merged with the AUT to form a different union, the UCU. They knew that the boycott was an empty publicity gesture when they voted for it, because AUT had voided a similar proposal a year earlier. However, the boycott motion, and the motion to support those dear people in the Hamas, served their purpose. The purpose was to gain publicity for delegitimation of Israel, and to help stamp in the association between "Apartheid" and "Israel."

Perhaps those opposed to the boycott inadvertantly excacerbated the problem by the counter-publicity campaign, which gave undue publicity to an irrelevant resolution made by a relatively obscure union.

In any case, there is no great cause for joy. No doubt they will be back at it with more and worse resolutions. How about a resolution mourning Zarqawi?

The Presbyterian church USA is about to reconsider its divestment initiative. Will Spotts visited the Middle East and wrote the report below. Previously, Spotts published a detailed and enlightened account of how the Presbyterian Church was led, or rather misled into supporting divestment - PRIDE AND PREJUDICE: THE PRESBYTERIAN DIVESTMENT STORY. His main findings:

The General Assembly heard one-sided testimony from those who supported the divestment decision and excluded other relevant voices. Two non-Presbyterians communicated with the assembly, Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, and Rt. Rev. Riah Abu el-Assal. The views of Israeli settlers, Israeli Christians, Israelis who opposed divestment, and American Jewish groups who opposed divestment were not considered.

The General Assembly relied on flawed sources of historical background information. Walter Owensby’s U.S. Policy and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Joel Beinin’s and Lisa Hajjar’s Palestine, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: a Primer were the two main sources used. Both display elements of one-sidedness, biased language, and disputed factual assertions.

The General Assembly depended uncritically on the testimonies of Palestinian Christian leaders. Those same Palestinian Christian leaders have made public statements that raise clear questions of credibility.

Several offices and permanent committees of the PC(USA) have demonstrated severe and long-standing bias against Israel. These include the Presbyterian News Service, the Washington Office, and the Advisory Committee for Social Witness Policy.

Over-cooperation between the employees of the PC(USA) and the employees of other denominations affected Presbyterian policy in violation of the Presbyterian form of government.

The General Assembly employed several quirky and potentially dangerous theological ideas to justify Middle East policy statements. Among these are elements of replacement theology and the use of explicitly Christian imagery to demonize Israelis.

The General Assembly apparently did not consider potential damage to Christian Jewish relations, the danger of contributing to the increase American anti-Semitism, and the danger of encouraging further violence in the Middle East.

Not surprisingly, the picture that emerges is that organization was maneuvered into supporting divestment by activists who staged a show complete with props. For example, Beinin and Hajjar's "primer" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a contemptible document written with the deliberate intention of disinformation. It is one of those "histories" that "forgets" to mention that Arab countries invaded Israel in 1948.

Can we hope for a fairer result this time around? Perhaps, and perhaps not. The outcome will not reflect "truth" or "justice," but rather it will measure how well organized supporters of Israel are in rallying to combat anti-Zionism.

Whoever was responsible for the explosion that killed 7 people in the Gaza family last Friday, it was certainly a tragedy waiting to happen, and scripted to happen. On the one hand, Israel cannot be expected to do nothing while Qassam rockets rain down on Israeli towns from inside Gaza. On the other hand, any measures Israel takes to stop the rockets, which come from heavily populated areas (all of Gaza is heavily populated in any case) carries the risk of injury to innocents.

The people launching those rockets are in the terror business. Their aim is to demonstrate to the Israeli public that withdrawal from the territories won't stop terror, because if Israel does withdraw, these folks will be out out of a job. They are interested in demonstrating to Palestinians that Israel is evil. They win whether Palestinian rockets land in Israel or Israeli shells land in Gaza.